Engaging Solutions on the Great Lakes
Introduction
In the early 1970s, eutrophication in Lake Erie reached a crisis point. Later that decade, deformities and rising contaminant levels in fishes and fish-eating birds became prominent concerns. In the 1980s, attention focused on contaminated sediments and local hot spots, termed “Areas of Concern.” The latest binational report on the State of the Great Lakes highlights a now-familiar litany of environmental problems: ongoing damage by invasive exotic species; deteriorated shoreline habitats; a worrying return of algal fouling in nearshore areas; and worsening trends in beach closures along the shores of Lake Erie and Lake Ontario.
Fixing the worst trouble spots has long been the focus of Great Lakes policy in Canada. This remediation mindset has been reflected in the two key agreements that continue to dominate Great Lakes discourse. At the binational level, Canada- U.S. interactions have been guided since 1972 by the periodically revised Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA). Within Canada, the federal government and Ontario collaborate under the Canada-Ontario Agreement Respecting the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem (COA), which has been revised on a roughly five year cycle since 1971. The 2007-2010 COA has been extended twice, and is set to expire in June 2012. The ECO will review the next COA once a decision has been posted on the Environmental Registry.
Site-specific remediation can be an effective tool for tackling the high variability within Great Lakes ecosystems and the need to tailor responses to local realities. But the COA’s focus on isolated trouble spots seems to have left little creative energy available for watershed-based thinking or proactive, preventative approaches. Lengthy renegotiations of both the GLWQA and the COA, involving multi-layered, multi-jurisdictional governance and management structures, have also threatened to paralyze progress. In addition, funding has been a constant issue (see box on COA funding).
| COA Funding Nowhere Near Adequate |
|---|
| Chronic underfunding has been a key weakness of the Canada-Ontario Agreement Respecting the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem (COA), with the dollars committed disproportionate to the scale of the challenges. Since 1987, governments have agreed on the need for clean-ups at 17 Canadian Areas of Concern. So far, only three such areas have been restored and formally delisted. The problems at the remaining sites are complex and expensive: in 2007 Environment Canada estimated that remediation costs total $3.5 billion. Since 2002, Ontario has allocated, on average, $10 million per year in operational project funding towards Great Lakes protection. Ontario has also pledged some additional project-specific funds mainly towards Areas of Concern; in August 2007, Ontario pledged $30 million towards cleaning up heavily contaminated sediments in Hamilton Harbour – a project estimated to cost up to $120 million.
Outside of the COA framework, Ontario has committed $653 million since 2007 toward upgrades of municipal wastewater infrastructure. Older systems desperately need to be updated. For example, five municipalities on the Ontario side of the Great Lakes (including Cornwall and Owen Sound), which still rely on primary sewage treatment, are scheduled for upgrades by 2015. The scope of the need, however, is much larger; the backlog for water and sewer repairs in Ontario has been estimated at $18 billion by the Water Strategy Expert Panel’s 2005 report, entitled Watertight, that was commissioned by the province. |
Ontario’s Opportunities to Lead
| U.S. Action on the Great Lakes |
|---|
| Impressive momentum and strong funding commitments characterize recent Great Lakes actions on the American side of the border. In 2009, U.S. President Obama proposed a five-year action plan to restore the lakes, involving many federal agencies and led by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). Congress then approved $475 million as the first-year (2010) installment for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI). Further, the plan envisions yearly funding installments through 2014, amounting to $2.2 billion – the largest investment in the Great Lakes in two decades. The GLRI funding comes on top of ongoing federal Great Lakes programs and funding for water and sewer infrastructure.
This unprecedented action plan features outcome-oriented goals, measurable interim benchmarks and a strong focus on accountability. Eligible projects must compete for centrally administered GLRI funds and must pass rigorous screening criteria. As part of the emphasis on accountability, the GLRI website describes almost 600 funded projects, including several Canadian-based projects. The GLRI increases pressure on Canadian authorities to put more money on the table. In late 2010, the U.S. EPA voiced expectations that Canada invest proportionally in the Great Lakes. Based on Canada’s population in the Great Lakes basin, the U.S. EPA says Canada’s investment should approximate one-third to one-half of the U.S. commitment. |
While it will require some serious funding commitments for Ontario to shift to a proactive watershed approach on the Great Lakes, the province and the Ministry of the Environment (MOE), in particular, already have the power to leverage their existing legislation, policies and programs to the task. They need not wait upon a renegotiation of the COA. Unilaterally, Ontario could implement the following:
- Expand the Lake Simcoe protection approach to the Great Lakes;
- Get serious about combined sewer overflows;
- Report on pollutant loadings;
- Build full-cost recovery into the water taking charge;
- Unleash the potential of the Clean Water Act, 2006 to protect Great Lakes waters;
- Build on successes like the cosmetic pesticides ban;
- Ban Asian carp imports, dead or alive;
- Defend wetlands;
- Curb agricultural runoff;
- Harness a broader range of ministries to deliver Great Lakes restoration; and
- Champion the Great Lakes.
Expand the Lake Simcoe Protection Approach to the Great Lakes
Lake Simcoe has a highly developed watershed and has long suffered from excessive phosphorus loadings, leading to algal blooms, fishery collapses and summer “dead zones” in its deep waters. Over the past several years, MOE has rolled out ambitious legislation and policy that recognize the connections between land uses around Lake Simcoe and water quality, and aim to restore ecological health to the lake waters and the watershed overall. The ECO’s 2009/2010 Annual Report recommended that Ontario adopt such integrated watershed planning, not just for selected trouble spots, but as a general rule.
Get Serious about Combined Sewer Overflows
Over 100 municipalities in Ontario have combined sewer systems that allow dilute untreated sewage to overflow into Great Lakes waterways during storms. Such overflows can amount to hundreds of millions of litres over a typical ice-free season and contribute significant loads of pathogens, nutrients and other pollutants to waterways. An MOE policy, dating from 1995, states that municipalities with combined sewer systems will be expected to develop control plans. The ECO’s 2004/2005 Annual Report encouraged the ministry to review municipal control plans, to stress the need for compliance, and to learn from the U.S. approach to regulating this major pollution source. However, as of December 2010, only about half of Ontario’s municipalities with combined sewers had completed plans to address sewage bypasses or overflows. Moreover, MOE still does not review such plans as part of its normal business practice. There is scope to greatly strengthen this outdated approach to combined sewer overflows, by setting deadlines for control plans and implementation and by reporting publicly on loadings trends.
Report on Pollutant Loadings
MOE’s restoration approach for Lake Simcoe includes measurable targets and timeframes for reducing phosphorus, improving oxygen levels, restoring natural vegetation and other parameters. The Lake Simcoe phosphorus reduction strategy is supported by a detailed phosphorus loading inventory, with reduction targets apportioned to contributing sectors. Unfortunately, such crucial loadings inventories are no longer available for the Great Lakes. MOE used to assemble data and report loadings for municipal wastewater plants, but stopped after 1991. The ECO’s 2009/2010 Annual Report recommended that the ministry publish such reports annually.
Build Full-Cost Recovery into the Water Taking Charge
Ontario Regulation 450/07 – Charges for Industrial and Commercial Water Users, made under the Ontario Water Resources Act, establishes a partial user-pay system for some provincial water management programs. But it applies to only a very small portion of water users, representing less than 2 per cent of the total volume taken under permit. The charge rate is also very low, and the estimated annual revenue of about $18 million covers only a small portion of the province’s full needs for water management. MOE could expand this user-pay system to help fund Great Lakes restoration work. The ECO’s 2007/2008
Unleash the Potential of the Clean Water Act, 2006 to Protect Great Lakes Waters
The Clean Water Act, 2006 (CWA) focuses on protecting drinking water sources. MOE publications have stressed that Great Lakes sources are within the scope of this legislation – appropriately so, since more than 70 per cent of Ontarians rely directly on the Great Lakes for their drinking water. The CWA enables the inclusion of powerful “Great Lakes policies” within local source protection plans, the impacts of which could extend to requiring amendments to official plans and zoning by-laws. Where such Great Lakes policies exist, municipalities would have a duty to comply, and prescribed site-specific permits and approvals would have to conform. Unfortunately, the potential of this tool to trigger more sustainable land use practices within Great Lakes watersheds remains theoretical unless the Minister of the Environment establishes mandatory targets for protecting the Great Lakes as a drinking water source and directs source protection authorities to include policies to achieve those targets in source protection plans. To date, this has not occurred. The ECO’s 2006/2007 Annual Report encouraged the ministry to establish such targets.
Build on Successes like the Cosmetic Pesticides Ban
In April 2009, Ontario’s ban on the sale and use of cosmetic pesticides took effect. Impressively, improvements in stream water quality already have been documented; an MOE study comparing before-ban and after-ban pesticide concentrations in urban streams found levels of several pesticides had dropped by up to 90 per cent. In our 2008/2009 Annual Report, the ECO urged MOE to consider further phase-outs of exempted pesticide uses, a move that could help prevent harmful pollutants from entering the Great Lakes – a key priority under the COA. MOE also could update the effluent limits under the Municipal-Industrial Strategy for Abatement (MISA) program controlling industrial discharges, as suggested in Part 7.4 of this Annual Report.
Ban Asian Carp Imports, Dead or Alive
The Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) is a signatory to the COA, and responsible for guarding against invasive species. Asian carp species – and their anticipated effects on aquatic habitat, the food web and the lakes’ $7 billion fishing industry – arguably represent the gravest invasive species threat to the Great Lakes. Fearing this threat, in January 2010 Ontario supported a lawsuit by Michigan demanding that the State of Illinois and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency immediately close the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, the only shipping link between the Mississippi River system (which is infested with Asian carp) and the Great Lakes. Despite the enormity of this demand, Ontario itself has failed to take all possible precautions. Although Ontario prohibits the possession of live Asian carp, an illegal market persists and poses ongoing risks. Perhaps MNR should consider raising penalties or prohibiting outright the possession of Asian carp, dead or alive.
Defend Wetlands
Wetlands on the Great Lakes continue to be lost and degraded as a result of land use, development and nutrient loadings. While MNR has numerous plans and programs to protect and restore wetlands in the Great Lakes basin, these measures are largely necessary because Ontario’s Provincial Policy Statement, 2005 (PPS) does not adequately prevent continued degradation. MNR touts the PPS as “one of the primary tools used to protect wetlands in Southern Ontario.” However, the ECO concluded in our 2008/2009 Annual Report that “the PPS provides insufficient measures to prevent the continued degradation and loss of natural features, such as wetlands.” Moreover, any protection afforded to wetlands by the PPS requires them first to be evaluated by MNR as provincially significant. Unfortunately, MNR’s effort to evaluate wetlands has not been consistent across the province.
Curb Agricultural Runoff
The Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA), a long-time signatory to the COA, oversees the province’s roughly 57,000 farm operations. The ministry calculates that livestock manure and other farm sources deposit about 400,000 tonnes of nitrogen and 180,000 tonnes of phosphorus onto Ontario farm lands annually. Thus the ministry has a significant challenge to encourage practices that maximize farm productivity while minimizing the environmental effects of farm runoff on watersheds. Management practices – such as creek-side vegetated buffers, fencing cattle, shelter belts and cover crops – all need to be part of the solution. However, implementing these changes in the field has been slow. Despite 20 years of raising awareness and hundreds of on-farm projects in the Lake Simcoe watershed, farms are still responsible for about 25 per cent of total waterborne phosphorus loadings (which is more than three times the combined inputs from local municipal sewage treatment plants). The phosphorus control programs remain disproportionately small compared to the size of the loadings. For example, one landowner assistance program in the Lake Simcoe watershed has contributed to an estimated reduction of 18 tonnes of phosphorus over a 20-year period (i.e., less than one tonne/year); but the estimated current loading from agricultural lands is 17 tonnes per year. Agriculture contributes additional phosphorus through windborne transport of disturbed soils.
Since 1992, OMAFRA’s key tool for rolling out sustainability skills to farmers has been the Environmental Farm Plan (EFP) – a voluntary education program reinforced by subsidies for eligible projects. But the ministry is only now beginning to examine the cumulative environmental effectiveness of this approach. Key questions need to be addressed, including the extent to which best management practices have been adopted, and their effectiveness in reducing loadings of nutrients to waterways.
The environmental effectiveness of the Nutrient Management Act, 2002 (NMA) also remains an open question. MOE describes the NMA as one of the key laws protecting the Great Lakes, primarily through a framework for managing manure. Administered jointly by OMAFRA and MOE, the NMA sets rules for certain livestock operations, requiring plans for manures and similar materials. But only a fraction of Ontario’s livestock operators are covered; OMAFRA estimates that only 27 per cent of the total manure volume is managed under these nutrient management rules. Although the nutrient management regulation, O. Reg. 267/03 made under the NMA, came into effect in 2003, OMAFRA is unable to provide the ECO with data or a summary of how manure-based nutrient loadings to waterways have changed overall as a consequence of the regulation.
Harness a Broader Range of Ministries to Deliver Great Lakes Restoration
Of the three provincial co-signatories to the COA (MOE, MNR and OMAFRA), MOE carries most of the responsibilities for Great Lakes outcomes. But many policy decisions critical to Great Lakes sustainability lie outside MOE’s control. Most notably, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) oversees land use planning through the Planning Act and the periodic review of the PPS. Thus, the introduction of greener approaches to stormwater management planning or improved protection of Great Lakes coastal wetlands will depend on MMAH, a ministry with no explicit stake in the health of the Great Lakes ecosystem.
Similarly, the Ministry of Infrastructure (MOI) has recently released its long-term infrastructure plan, Building Together, which addresses water and wastewater infrastructure. Although MOE is able to contribute advice on sewage infrastructure needs, the weighing of overall priorities occurs at MOI, a ministry not tied by any formal obligations to Great Lakes goals. The accountability gaps created by the absence of MMAH and MOI at the COA table were noted in a 2005 review of the COA conducted by Canada and Ontario. This review recommended that “the Parties to COA should be expanded to include ministries or departments that are involved in managing environmental sustainability issues in the Great Lakes Basin.”
Champion the Great Lakes
MOE has acknowledged that many Ontarians do not know much about the Great Lakes or their importance. Yet public outreach on the Great Lakes is very tentative; even interesting research findings and good news on site-specific progress do not seem to get prominent play. For example, MOE is not widely educating the public on the phenomenon of the “nearshore shunt” (see box on nearshore shunt), despite the ministry’s own research contributions and its big implications for lake management. A designated “champion” for the Great Lakes at a senior level within MOE might improve both public outreach and knowledge brokering. In addition, such a facilitator might better integrate and leverage the Great Lakes work currently scattered among several divisions within MOE.
Conclusion
Just as cities, from time to time, have to “rediscover” their own waterfronts, so it seems that regions periodically must reconnect with their own defining ecological features. On the American side of the border, there has been a concerted decision to reconnect with – and invest in – the Great Lakes. Ontario should seize the opportunity to do the same and engage the many solutions that lie within its own powers.
| The “Nearshore Shunt” and the Resurgence of Harmful Cladophora Blooms |
|---|
 This time, the apparent explosion of Cladophora is believed to be a result of ecosystem alterations caused by invasive mussels (i.e., zebra and quagga mussels). The accidental introduction and subsequent widespread colonization of these mussels substantially increased nearshore water filtration and, therefore, light penetration, allowing Cladophora to expand their range in both depth and distribution. Invasive mussels may also boost Cladophora growth by providing substrate for attachment, reducing nutrient competition, and trapping and recycling phosphorus (and other nutrients) in the nearshore in a process termed the “nearshore shunt.” As a result, previous progress in reducing Cladophora growth has largely been offset by mussel-induced increases in water clarity and impacts on phosphorus cycling. Moreover, by trapping phosphorus into nearshore zones, the mussels may be responsible for nearshore eutrophication (which results in the depletion of oxygen and wildlife) and a parallel nutrient depletion (“desertification”) of deeper offshore waters. This time, the apparent explosion of Cladophora is believed to be a result of ecosystem alterations caused by invasive mussels (i.e., zebra and quagga mussels). The accidental introduction and subsequent widespread colonization of these mussels substantially increased nearshore water filtration and, therefore, light penetration, allowing Cladophora to expand their range in both depth and distribution. Invasive mussels may also boost Cladophora growth by providing substrate for attachment, reducing nutrient competition, and trapping and recycling phosphorus (and other nutrients) in the nearshore in a process termed the “nearshore shunt.” As a result, previous progress in reducing Cladophora growth has largely been offset by mussel-induced increases in water clarity and impacts on phosphorus cycling. Moreover, by trapping phosphorus into nearshore zones, the mussels may be responsible for nearshore eutrophication (which results in the depletion of oxygen and wildlife) and a parallel nutrient depletion (“desertification”) of deeper offshore waters. |
For ministry comments, please see Appendix C.
| Previous section: Engaging Provincial Solutions |
| Next section: Far North Act, 2010 |
| This is an article from the 2010/11 Annual Report to the Legislature from the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. |
Citing This Article:
Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. 2011. "Engaging Solutions on the Great Lakes." Engaging Solutions, ECO Annual Report, 2010/11. Toronto: The Queen's Printer for Ontario. 7-13.
